Why the Petraeus sex scandal is important

[CommunitarianKevin]

FFS... do you people actually believe this nonsense? Or do you just say it out of a sense of frustration that you lost?

Sadly, I think they do. That is why they are obsessed with Benghazi in the first place...ANYTHING to make Obama look bad...If you turn on Fox 'News' you would think Benghazi is the biggest tragedy and government cover-up in US history.

[JGirl]

LOL! Got something you wann show us JGirl? Love the new Avatar btw

let's just say that all my performances have been 'live' .

thanks re: my avatar.

[Merc14]

There is no fuss.

You wouldn't know that by watching Fox news though, but most people here don't think either incident is a "scandal" and most people care very little that a general was banging his biographer for a few months, or if the white house labeled or didn't label an attack on a US embassy "terrorist" or not and when.

So the Director of the CIA giving false testimony about the death of an ambassdor because the administration is blackmailing him is nothing to fuss about? Wow, if this was Bush's watch I am sure the outcry would be loud and shrill.

[Merc14]

Sadly, I think they do. That is why they are obsessed with Benghazi in the first place...ANYTHING to make Obama look bad...If you turn on Fox 'News' you would think Benghazi is the biggest tragedy and government cover-up in US history.

Did you think Watergate was a big deal? O h hell, I don't expect an honest answer from you and have no idea how old you were at the time but that was a bungled burglary that hurt no one and took downm a President. Coverting uop teh death of an ambassador to get yourself reelected makes Wtergate look like child's play. The fact that people like you on the left and the MSM are willing to bury it to protect your guy speaks volumes for the character of the people on the left.

Personally, I'd be outraged if my side did something like this and it find it abhorrent that the media is acting as a willing accomplice. If this was Watergate, Woodward and Bernstein would be helping Nixon cover up the crime and outing Deepthroat as a crazy extremist.

[CommunitarianKevin]

So the Director of the CIA giving false testimony about the death of an ambassdor because the administration is blackmailing him is nothing to fuss about? Wow, if this was Bush's watch I am sure the outcry would be loud and shrill.

Wait, what? Man, I missed this news story...It must be a new one...I didn't realize any of this was proven, or even had evidence to support it, as of yet...

And no talking about Bush...that was 4 years ago...

[CommunitarianKevin]

Did you think Watergate was a big deal? O h hell, I don't expect an honest answer from you and have no idea how old you were at the time but that was a bungled burglary that hurt no one and took downm a President. Coverting uop teh death of an ambassador to get yourself reelected makes Wtergate look like child's play. The fact that people like you on the left and the MSM are willing to bury it to protect your guy speaks volumes for the character of the people on the left.

Personally, I'd be outraged if my side did something like this and it find it abhorrent that the media is acting as a willing accomplice. If this was Watergate, Woodward and Bernstein would be helping Nixon cover up the crime and outing Deepthroat as a crazy extremist.

Hey dude...why don't you just let the story develop...everything you are saying is total speculation. I am waiting to get the facts before I call someone out on it. If someone is guilty of something, they should be punished...but we do not have any evidence of that yet. Also if someone is to blame, what makes you think it is the president? You are aware that things happen in our government and military without the president's knowledge right? Take a chill pill before you accuse people. My guess would be that the president was also in the dark about the mater. BOTH sides (Dems and Repubs) are upset they did not know about Petraeus before the fact.

[Merc14]

Wait, what? Man, I missed this news story...It must be a new one...I didn't realize any of this was proven, or even had evidence to support it, as of yet...

And no talking about Bush...that was 4 years ago...

The point here is that you don't want any of this even investigated! You don't care because it is your side! Instead of being ashamed of yourself you are proud! You couldn't care less if the law is broken if it helps your side. Thanks for letting us all know what kind of a person you are.

[CommunitarianKevin]

The point here is that you don't want any of this even investigated! You don't care because it is your side! Instead of being ashamed of yourself you are proud! You couldn't care less if the law is broken if it helps your side. Thanks for letting us all know what kind of a person you are.

Wow you are really pulling stuff out of your ass now. When did I ever say that it should not be investigated? Stop making stuff up...even though that is what your type depends on...made up stuff...

See, you think you know so much about everything...you think you even know what I am thinking. You will come on here and make claims about what I am thinking or what kind of person I am because you KNOW what I am thinking. You KNOW as much about Benghazi as you know what I am thinking...to you, a fact and an opinion are the same thing...

Edited November 14, 2012 by HuttonEtAl

[Neognosis]

So the Director of the CIA giving false testimony about the death of an ambassdor because the administration is blackmailing him is nothing to fuss about?

GOOD POINT... except that there is no indication that ever happened.

Did you think Watergate was a big deal? O h hell, I don't expect an honest answer from you and have no idea how old you were at the time but that was a bungled burglary that hurt no one and took downm a President.

the president of the united states ordered a felony to be committed, or at the very least, had knowledge of it happening, and then broke the law again to cover it up. So it's not ENTIRELY the same. And by "not entirely" I mean "Not at all."

Edited November 14, 2012 by Neognosis

[Merc14]

GOOD POINT... except that there is no indication that ever happened.

Real;ly? None at akll hus? I guess you didn't view the clip or read the article. Investifgations have been ordered on far, far less evidence than this. LMAO

the president of the united states ordered a felony to be committed, or at the very least, had knowledge of it happening, and then broke the law again to cover it up. So it's not ENTIRELY the same. And by "not entirely" I mean "Not at all."

At least you're consistent. :w00t:

[+OverSword]

No it's not. You can't staff an embassy with an unlimited amount of security personnel. I don't know enough details to say what happened there, but it is not as if someone fell asleep and forgot to lock the front door....

It's not like 5 people with slingshots walked in.

A cable was sent to higher ups that the embassy was vulnerable to attack because it was in a city where the gov't was not firmly in control, there are Al Quada camps were in the countryside, and there is limited host nation support. That's EVERY US EMBASSY IN THE MIDDLE EAST.

Unless you put every middle east US embassy in the middle of a military base, you are never going to have a completely secured area. And even then.....

That's your opinion no doubt. My opinion is that to not fully oufit and man (and there is no doubt this was not done) a new embassy in an unstable country which is historically hostile to the USA, is criminal. That all of the shortcomings in the staffing of this embassy led to the deaths of our ambassador shows just how criminally negligent the entire fiasco is. Someone should be brought to task. Deny it neog, deny it one more time please.

[Neognosis]

Real;ly? None at akll hus? I guess you didn't view the clip or read the article. Investifgations have been ordered on far, far less evidence than this. LMAO

Let's hold off crying about how obama can shoot someone, smoking gun, blah blah blah until after the investigation, eh?

My opinion is that to not fully oufit and man (and there is no doubt this was not done) a new embassy in an unstable country which is historically hostile to the USA, is criminal.

The embassy was fully outfitted and manned. This is really nothing more than trying to make the MOST political hay out of a terrorist attack on US soil. Something that seems to have a VERY familiar ring to it, coming from the right.....

what I am interested in, is whether or not, and why or why not, reports coming from the embassy asking for MORE were not heeded, and who failed in that.

Edited November 15, 2012 by Neognosis

[+and-then]

Let's hold off crying about how obama can shoot someone, smoking gun, blah blah blah until after the investigation, eh?

The embassy was fully outfitted and manned. This is really nothing more than trying to make the MOST political hay out of a terrorist attack on US soil. Something that seems to have a VERY familiar ring to it, coming from the right.....

what I am interested in, is whether or not, and why or why not, reports coming from the embassy asking for MORE were not heeded, and who failed in that.

You mean the one that's supposedly taken 2 months with NOTHING of substance being reported? The smoking gun thing was simply a comment not to be taken seriously. But when I deal with pansy asses that report everything I say as though it's the end of civilization, what else should I expect?

[CommunitarianKevin]

You mean the one that's supposedly taken 2 months with NOTHING of substance being reported? The smoking gun thing was simply a comment not to be taken seriously. But when I deal with pansy asses that report everything I say as though it's the end of civilization, what else should I expect?

What is with you people? You demand to have all of the information NOW. I guess I should first point out that ANY investigation takes time. When ever you see a high profile case it often takes YEARS before it comes to trial and the trial is concluded. Chill dude, it takes time, especially something of this magnitude.

Also, what makes you think you are entitled to ALL of the facts NOW? First off, you are lucky to know anything at all. People, especially in America, seem to think it is their right to know everything about everything. Second, do you really want every little detail out there? Do you not think it might be a national security risk or an advantage to terrorists to put EVERY LITTLE DETAIL about how something went wrong or possible weaknesses? We are talking about the CIA, the government, and the military...possibly the FBI. You want them to just throw everything out there? Hell, we may as well throw all of our classified stuff and inner workings of the government on wikipedia or something. We could call the page "everything a terrorist needs to know about attacking the United States."

For as much as Repubs talk about national security and defense, they seem to not care about it a whole lot. I tend to fall on the side of actual security and letting people do their jobs to conduct an investigation that will not further damage any possible security issues we may have.

[F3SS]

You know Hut, its pretty clear the YouTube story was a lie. Being deceived makes some people mad and they want answers and little deception usually leads to more deception. I'd guess that most government happenings take more time to get the cover story together than it does to figure out real story.

Edited November 15, 2012 by -Mr_Fess-

[+and-then]

What is with you people? You demand to have all of the information NOW. I guess I should first point out that ANY investigation takes time. When ever you see a high profile case it often takes YEARS before it comes to trial and the trial is concluded. Chill dude, it takes time, especially something of this magnitude.

Also, what makes you think you are entitled to ALL of the facts NOW? First off, you are lucky to know anything at all. People, especially in America, seem to think it is their right to know everything about everything. Second, do you really want every little detail out there? Do you not think it might be a national security risk or an advantage to terrorists to put EVERY LITTLE DETAIL about how something went wrong or possible weaknesses? We are talking about the CIA, the government, and the military...possibly the FBI. You want them to just throw everything out there? Hell, we may as well throw all of our classified stuff and inner workings of the government on wikipedia or something. We could call the page "everything a terrorist needs to know about attacking the United States."

For as much as Repubs talk about national security and defense, they seem to not care about it a whole lot. I tend to fall on the side of actual security and letting people do their jobs to conduct an investigation that will not further damage any possible security issues we may have.

Look, man, I just got back from a 2 week "vacation" from posting here and the LAST thing I care to do is argue - sincerely. But considering the trail of events and the obvious attempts to sweep this under a rug, I think 2 months is a sufficient time frame for SOMETHING to be forthcoming, don't you? Even if the election wasn't part of the equation, that's over now and the president has another 4. But it's time the people were told WHY a terror attack - ON 9-11- was allowed and then denied. Fox news or not, this one is NOT going to go away. Things are usually never as good or bad as they seem at first glance and that's a good thing for the prez because if THIS is as bad as it seems to be then Impeachment could be on the table. Conviction? Never... but he could still be dragged into court.

[MiskatonicGrad]

What is with you people? You demand to have all of the information NOW. I guess I should first point out that ANY investigation takes time. When ever you see a high profile case it often takes YEARS before it comes to trial and the trial is concluded. Chill dude, it takes time, especially something of this magnitude.

Also, what makes you think you are entitled to ALL of the facts NOW? First off, you are lucky to know anything at all. People, especially in America, seem to think it is their right to know everything about everything. Second, do you really want every little detail out there? Do you not think it might be a national security risk or an advantage to terrorists to put EVERY LITTLE DETAIL about how something went wrong or possible weaknesses? We are talking about the CIA, the government, and the military...possibly the FBI. You want them to just throw everything out there? Hell, we may as well throw all of our classified stuff and inner workings of the government on wikipedia or something. We could call the page "everything a terrorist needs to know about attacking the United States."

For as much as Repubs talk about national security and defense, they seem to not care about it a whole lot. I tend to fall on the side of actual security and letting people do their jobs to conduct an investigation that will not further damage any possible security issues we may have.

The problem I have with the whole thing is timing. the supposed affair was going on while the General was being vetted for the CIA. now I'm pretty sure the FBI had thier anal probes out and well lubed during this process and they didn't find out about the affair? Didn't they ever watch the show Cheaters? Do we have the keystone cops in the FBI? So if they did know about the affair they let it slide? Why? It's called having dirt on someone we can use at a later date.

The way I see it the left never liked Patraeus and decided to set him up. was the writer a "plant" she sure smells like one. no cred. and getting to write the bio on the most powerful general in the country? Are we ever going to know the truth? not just a no but a HELL NO!

[ninjadude]

So the Director of the CIA giving false testimony about the death of an ambassdor

did you even read this garbage from an onion-like site? He hasn't given any testimony.

[Merc14]

What is with you people? You demand to have all of the information NOW. I guess I should first point out that ANY investigation takes time. When ever you see a high profile case it often takes YEARS before it comes to trial and the trial is concluded. Chill dude, it takes time, especially something of this magnitude.

Also, what makes you think you are entitled to ALL of the facts NOW? First off, you are lucky to know anything at all. People, especially in America, seem to think it is their right to know everything about everything. Second, do you really want every little detail out there? Do you not think it might be a national security risk or an advantage to terrorists to put EVERY LITTLE DETAIL about how something went wrong or possible weaknesses? We are talking about the CIA, the government, and the military...possibly the FBI. You want them to just throw everything out there? Hell, we may as well throw all of our classified stuff and inner workings of the government on wikipedia or something. We could call the page "everything a terrorist needs to know about attacking the United States."

For as much as Repubs talk about national security and defense, they seem to not care about it a whole lot. I tend to fall on the side of actual security and letting people do their jobs to conduct an investigation that will not further damage any possible security issues we may have.

All you reactionary a-holes SHUT UP about the Benghazi affair, declares H-etal, because the most trusted and transparent administration in the history of the world is diligently investigating this abomination and we can trust that the honorable Eric Holder (the same one covering up Fast and Furious but that doesn't matter anyways according to H-etal so bugger off) will get to the bottom of all this and tell us what to think. LMAO.

Obama was defending Rice today and said when she went out and lied to the public on all 4 network Sunday shows she didn't know a thing and was just reporting what she told to by the administration. SO why the hell did they send her out if she had nothing to do with the attack and didn't know anything about the attack? Where the hell was the SoS?? Why did Petraeus lie to congress? Oh, sorry, I am not supposed to ask that till Holder tells me what really happened. Yeah, that Eric Holder.

Why is that incompetent boob Hillary in Australia at a wine tasting? Subpoena her and if she blows you off censure her, congress, you bunch of cowards!

[Merc14]

did you even read this garbage from an onion-like site? He hasn't given any testimony.

So Charles Krauthammer is from the Onion? Is that what you are saying because I'll put his credentials up against anyone from the MSM any day. I don't care what site I linked, it is what Krauthammer said, verbatim, that we are talking about. It was him in a clip so who cares where I linked to.

Seriously, you need to bring something more than strawman attacks on source sites if you want to participate as anything more than a blind zealot of the one. Strawman attacks, such as you constantly use, are a sign of a person who has no legitimate argument and simply wants to change the direction of the debate or a person defending the indefensible or a person of limited intelligence who can do no better than ad-hominem attacks. Which one are you ND?

Edited November 15, 2012 by Merc14

[Imaginarynumber1]

He has knowledge and access to top secret classified American intelligence. And who was in a position to possibly be black-mailed.

Seems like reason enough.

From what I have heard, this is why he resigned, so that he could not be blackmailed.

[CommunitarianKevin]

Look, man, I just got back from a 2 week "vacation" from posting here and the LAST thing I care to do is argue - sincerely. But considering the trail of events and the obvious attempts to sweep this under a rug, I think 2 months is a sufficient time frame for SOMETHING to be forthcoming, don't you? Even if the election wasn't part of the equation, that's over now and the president has another 4. But it's time the people were told WHY a terror attack - ON 9-11- was allowed and then denied. Fox news or not, this one is NOT going to go away. Things are usually never as good or bad as they seem at first glance and that's a good thing for the prez because if THIS is as bad as it seems to be then Impeachment could be on the table. Conviction? Never... but he could still be dragged into court.

The problem I have with the whole thing is timing. the supposed affair was going on while the General was being vetted for the CIA. now I'm pretty sure the FBI had thier anal probes out and well lubed during this process and they didn't find out about the affair? Didn't they ever watch the show Cheaters? Do we have the keystone cops in the FBI? So if they did know about the affair they let it slide? Why? It's called having dirt on someone we can use at a later date.

The way I see it the left never liked Patraeus and decided to set him up. was the writer a "plant" she sure smells like one. no cred. and getting to write the bio on the most powerful general in the country? Are we ever going to know the truth? not just a no but a HELL NO!

I am going to combine my response to both of you...

“SOMETHING” has come out and progress is being made. Man, I suggest the Liberal news networks. Just today Petraeus agreed to testify about Benghazi. Both Repubs and Dems want answers and people have been assigned to look into it.

Yesterday and today McCain and Lindsey whatever hammered UN ambassador Susan Rice. Obama spoke today and was furious. Rice did nothing wrong. She simply said what she was told to say. Obama said to blame him and not try to ruin the career of an innocent person. He also said that when he was informed lives were in danger in Benghazi, he said they must be protected at all costs and initiated action. The question is, why did this not happen? Was the president informed too late? Did his orders not get followed or not get followed correctly? The president wants answers as much as anyone.

The sex scandal has also come about. I would also consider this “something.” Though we cannot be sure there is a connection to Benghazi, Dems and Repubs are upset. Not even the president knew that the FBI was investigating Petraeus. The FBI has been investigating Petraeus for months. What is this talk about the FBI not finding the affair? They did find it…because they were informed of it…and it has now continued on to other things such as General Allen. Facts are coming out.

Some things are certain. That is that the CIA does stuff without the president knowing about it. The FBI also does stuff without the president knowing about it. Everyone is upset the FBI did not tell the president about the sex scandal, but I would argue that this is a good thing. If the president knew that the FBI was looking into Petreaus, he could take action to cover that up. By not telling him everything, it kept the probe clean. We need these different organizations to work separately every once in a while to ensure there are NOT cover ups. The FBI may have in fact uncovered something that was trying to be covered up. You think the FBI “let it slide?” Who do you think made Petreaus resign? The FBI found out about it and ended his career…Like I have said…let things play out before we hang people…

And why did a terrorist attack happen on 9/11? My guess would be because of the same reason it happened on 9/11 the first time… some crazy Muslims had a plan. You say it was “allowed?” so the first 9/11 was allowed? By Bush?

I did not want to bring Bush into it but since you want to talk impeachment, why not…

What was the first 9/11 allowed to happen? Did the CIA and the Bush administration not have clues and information on possible attacks? Why did we not know about it? Why did Bush not know about it? If he did, was he trying to cover it up? Why no impeach him?

Also in the Bush administration…we were informed that there were WMD in Iraq, so Bush decided to invade them. Turns out, there were no WMDs. Who is responsible for this? Who is responsible for thousands of American’s lives and trillions of dollars? Did our intelligence screw up? It is possible our intelligence screwed up, just as it did in Benghazi. So in comparison, Bush should have been impeached…Hell, he probably could have been tried as a war criminal. But was it Bush’s fault? Maybe it had nothing to do with the president…maybe it has nothing to do with Obama. The fact is that the blunders under the Bush administration cost us thousands of lives and trillions of dollars and yet there were no negative consequences. But you think Obama should be impeached for the loss of 4 lives? At least try and seem reasonable…

Edited November 15, 2012 by HuttonEtAl

[CommunitarianKevin]

All you reactionary a-holes SHUT UP about the Benghazi affair, declares H-etal, because the most trusted and transparent administration in the history of the world is diligently investigating this abomination and we can trust that the honorable Eric Holder (the same one covering up Fast and Furious but that doesn't matter anyways according to H-etal so bugger off) will get to the bottom of all this and tell us what to think. LMAO.

Obama was defending Rice today and said when she went out and lied to the public on all 4 network Sunday shows she didn't know a thing and was just reporting what she told to by the administration. SO why the hell did they send her out if she had nothing to do with the attack and didn't know anything about the attack? Where the hell was the SoS?? Why did Petraeus lie to congress? Oh, sorry, I am not supposed to ask that till Holder tells me what really happened. Yeah, that Eric Holder.

Why is that incompetent boob Hillary in Australia at a wine tasting? Subpoena her and if she blows you off censure her, congress, you bunch of cowards!

Your right, chump...just take Obama and his administration (no Repubs though) out back and hang them. Destroy the American government and kill all of its leaders. THEN THE TERRORISTS HAVE WON.

[CommunitarianKevin]

So Charles Krauthammer is from the Onion? Is that what you are saying because I'll put his credentials up against anyone from the MSM any day. I don't care what site I linked, it is what Krauthammer said, verbatim, that we are talking about. It was him in a clip so who cares where I linked to.

Seriously, you need to bring something more than strawman attacks on source sites if you want to participate as anything more than a blind zealot of the one. Strawman attacks, such as you constantly use, are a sign of a person who has no legitimate argument and simply wants to change the direction of the debate or a person defending the indefensible or a person of limited intelligence who can do no better than ad-hominem attacks. Which one are you ND?

Why are your sources so much better than everyone elses? You are one to bring up ad-hominem attacks...

[CommunitarianKevin]

And by the way...what the hell is MSM? I do not know this term...when I google MSM the first thing that comes up is "men that have sex with men..."

What are you talking about exactly?